HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU HCP No. 9/2025 CM No. 2453/2025 CM No. 160/2025 Mohd. Kabir, age 49 years, S/o Feroz Din, R/o Village Nerojal, Tehsil Thanna Mandi, District Rajouri (Detenue) Through his wife Gulnaz Perveen, age 41 years R/o Village Nerojal, Tehsil Thanna Mandi, District Rajouri ….Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. C.S. Azad, Advocate Vs 1. U.T of Jammu and Kashmir Through Additional Chief Secretary/ Principal Secretary to Government, Home Department, Civil Secretariat, Jammu-180001 2. District Magistrate, Rajouri 3. Sr. Superintendent of Police, Rajouri 4. Station House Officer, Police Station Thannamandi, District Rajouri 5. Jail Superintendent, Kote Bhalwal, Jammu Jail .…. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Thappa, AAG Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 08.05.2025 1. In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has challenged the detention Order No. DMR/INDEXC/05 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 read with Order No. DMR/JC/2024-25/2236-40 dated 07.11.2024 (for short ‘the impugned order’) passed by the respondent No. 2/District Magistrate, Rajouri (for short ‘the detaining authority’) in terms of provisions of the Jammu & Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978 (for short ‘the Act of 1978’). Sr.No. 08 2 HCP No. 9/2025 2. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order on multiple grounds urged in the petition. 3. Reply has been filed to the petition by the respondent 2/detaining authority, wherein the petition has been opposed on the premise that on the basis of the dossier furnished, revealing the activities of the petitioner highly prejudicial to the maintenance of public order, and the involvement of the petitioner in as many as 12 FIRs, posing a serious threat to the public order, preventive detention of the petitioner became imperative and that though the petitioner was previously detained under preventive detention under the Act of 1978, yet the said detention did not reform the petitioner and he continued with his criminal activities thereof. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 4. According to Mr. C.S. Azad, appearing counsel for the petitioner, though the petitioner was earlier detained under the preventive detention by the respondents owing to his alleged involvement in as many as 10 FIRs, the detaining authority while passing the present impugned order has yet again referred to and relied upon the said earlier FIRs, despite having been scrutinized by this Court while quashing the said earlier detention order on 29.09.2023 in HCP No. 20/2023 filed by the petitioner. According to Mr. Azad, although, post quashing of the earlier detention, the detaining authority while detaining the petitioner in terms of the impugned order has referred to and relied upon two more FIRs being FIR No. 91/2024 registered with Police Station, Thanamandi and FIR No. 281/2023 registered with Police Station, Akhnoor, yet the said FIRs do not 3 HCP No. 9/2025 per se constitute any activity, which could be said to be prejudicial to public order, warranting the detention of the petitioner. Mr. Azad would further contend that FIR No. 91/2024 (Supra), though, came to be registered as per the grounds of detention on 21.06.2024 against the petitioner along with one Tariq Mehmood, being his son, the said son of the petitioner on 21.06.2024 was already under preventive detention, detained under and in terms of the detention order dated 13.05.2024, thus, suggesting complete non-application of mind by both the sponsoring agency as well as the detaining authority in the matter. 5. On the contrary, Mr. Rajesh Thappa, learned AAG appearing counsel for the respondents, while opposing the submissions of Mr. Azad would insist that the petitioner is a gangster and a notorious criminal, involved in multiple criminal cases, which necessitated his detention under the preventive law, in that, the ordinary law was found to be insufficient to deter the petitioner from indulging in activities prejudicial to the public order. 6. Insofar as, the aforesaid first plea of the counsel of the petitioner is concerned, record available on the file bears testimony to the fact that the petitioner have had been previously detained under preventive detention by the respondents in terms of the detention order dated 15.06.2023, having admittedly been based upon aforesaid 10 FIRs referred therein in the said order of detention and upon being examined by this Court in HCP No. 20/2023 (Supra), filed by the petitioner while calling in question the said detention order, stands taken cognizance of and the said FIR’s including FIRs Nos. 91/2024 and 281/2023, seemingly, have formed basis for 4 HCP No. 9/2025 detaining the petitioner in terms of the present impugned order. It also gets revealed from the record available on the file that the activities attributed to the petitioner covered in the said FIR No. 91/2024 and 281/2023 (Supra), seemingly, do not constitute an activity prejudicial to public order, so much so, it also gets revealed from the record that on the date of registration of FIR No. 91/2024 (Supra) being 21.06.2024, the son of the petitioner referred in the said FIR, namely, Tariq Mehmood have had been under preventive detention and could not have been found involved in the commission of offences covered in the said FIR by any stretch of imagination. A reference in this regard to the judgment of this Court passed in case titled as “Wali Mohd Bhat vs. Distt. Magistrate, Baramulla” reported in 1986 Cri LJ 655, would be relevant. The aforesaid facts and circumstances thus, manifestly, tend to show that the respondents have taken recourse to the preventive law for detaining the petitioner on account of his involvement in alleged criminal activities as a short-cut method by styling the said activities of the petitioner to be the one prejudicial to the public order. It is also manifest from the record that the detaining authority have had been not sure about the activities attributed to the petitioner as to whether the same constitute activities prejudicial to the public order or to public peace and tranquility, in that, the detaining authority, in the grounds of detention, has referred at various places such activities to be anti-social at some places, against peace and tranquility of the society and at various places to the public order. A reference in regard to the above judgment of this Court passed in the case titled “Faizan Rafiq Hakeem vs. State of J&K and ors.” reported in 5 HCP No. 9/2025 2011(3) JKJ 238, would be relevant herein wherein at para-16 following has been laid down:- “16. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled G. M. Shah v. State of J&K reported in (1980) 1 Supreme Court Cases 132 has ruled that detaining authority cannot while ordering for detention of a person simultaneously state that his activities are highly prejudicial to the security of a state and maintenance of public order.” Besides, while detaining the petitioner under the present impugned order, the reliance placed upon the FIR’s earlier relied upon by the detaining authority while detaining the petitioner earlier as well, is not countenanced by the law laid down by the Apex Court in case titled “C.B. Kahar vs. N.L. Kalna” reported in AIR 1989 SC 1234, wherein at para-12, following has been laid down:- “12. It emerges from the above authoritative judicial pronouncements that even if the order of detention comes to an end either by revocation or by expiry of the period of detention there must be fresh facts for passing a subsequent order. A fortiori when a detention order is quashed by the court issuing a high prerogative writ like habeas corpus or certiorari the grounds of the said order should not be taken into consideration either as a whole or in part even along with the fresh grounds of detention for drawing the requisite subjective satisfaction to pass a fresh order because once the court strikes down an earlier order by issuing rule it nullifies the entire order.” 7. Viewed thus, for what has been observed, considered and analyzed herein above, the impugned order is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed and the impugned detention Order No. DMR/INDEXC/05 of 2024 dated 22.10.2024 read with Order No. DMR/JC/2024-25/2236-40 dated 07.11.2024 is quashed with a direction to the respondents, including the concerned jail authority, to release 6 HCP No. 9/2025 the petitioner from preventive detention forthwith, unless, he is not required in any other case. 9. Disposed of. ( (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge Jammu 08.05.2025 Pawan Angotra Whether the order is speaking? : Yes/No Whether the order is reportable? : Yes/No Pawan Angotra 2025.05.13 14:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document